Section 3, Question 15 of the June 2007 LSAT presents this stinker of an argument:

A consumer magazine surveyed people who had sought a psychologist’s help with a personal problem. Of those responding who had received treatment for 6 months or less, 20 percent claimed that treatment “made things a lot better.” Of those responding who had received longer treatment, 36 percent claimed that treatment “made things a lot better.” Therefore, psychological treatment lasting more than 6 months is more effective than shorter-term treatment.

Ideally, you’ll be able to poke holes in this one before proceeding to the answer choices. This isn’t the only way to do the test, but it’s the best one. Can you tell me why the above argument is bullshit?

Continue reading ‘June 2007 LSAT, III, #15’ »

Onward through the June 2007 LSAT.

Section 2, Question 14 presents yet another bogus argument.  The ultimate conclusion here is Cause and Effect:  Raw milk, raised to 50 degrees Celsius in a microwave, loses its enzymes because of microwaves, not because of heat.  The evidence for this assertion is the fact that exposure to a conventional heat source of 50 degrees won’t lead to the same enzyme loss.  There’s a problem here, and you’d better figure out what the problem is before you stumble blindly into the answer choices.  Think about it for a minute.  Take your time.

Continue reading ‘June 2007 LSAT, II, #14’ »

Onward through the June 2007 LSAT.

Take a look at the argument about video game sales that’s presented in Section two, Question nine.  Stop before you get to the answer choices.  Now, tell me what you think about the argument.  This is a test, by the way.  Your opinion of the argument will indicate whether you’re good at this or not.

Continue reading ‘June 2007 LSAT, II, #9’ »

Continuing through the June 2007 LSAT, we arrive at an argument about global warming.  Please read the argument critically, then come back.

This one feels a little different, huh?  That’s because the argument, for once, seems close to being reasonable–there’s no glaring flaw.  All we have here is a description of a phenomenon and then an explanation of that phenomenon.  There aren’t a lot of moving parts.  Still, the argument is far from complete.

According to the scientist, it is a fact that the Earth’s average annual temperature has increased by about 0.5 degrees Celsius over the last century.  We can’t argue with this part.  But the scientist goes on to explain this fact with a claim about causality:  The warming is primarily the result of the buildup of gases in the atmosphere, which blocks the outward flow of heat from the planet.

Uh-oh.  That’s a claim of causation.

Continue reading ‘June 2007 LSAT, II, #5’ »